Essay on Programming Concepts

Yes, there is. I can guarentee you WC3 does not have two threads running simultaneous. It has to be specially programmed for that for various reasons. It's not a simple matter, and cannot be done retroactively.

Wc3 is old, it is not even meant to be ran on dual/quad/octa core processors. Hence why it can't multithread.

Originally Posted by Nestharus

...
You also have a special thing that comes in most CPUs now called Hyperthreading which is pretty spiffy and can help out with this process.
...

Intel's HTT technology does not "help with multi-threading process", it just forces the OS to see your processor as 2. Think of a dual-core with split total speed, if that makes sense (for example a 2.5ghz single core processor with HTT is half as good as a 2.5ghz dual core without, but don't think so literally because different progressions of processors bring new technologies and can't be thought of as 'twice as good' or 'half as good')

I didn't say it helped with the trheading process, I just said hyper-threading makes it go faster : P and is included in most CPUs.


Also, generally when you have a program or w/e, if you let the OS handle the threads and so on (meaning it has parallel processing capabilities), it can account for any number of CPUs.

Now, like I said, I was talking about multi-threading in wc3, not parallel processing, and I was talking about how the threads would be allocated to increase speed.

If it only uses 1 CPU no matter what and has absolutely no parallel processing, then I guess multi-threading would only be useful to keep your threads from crashing.

Yes, wc3 can multi-thread in either case, but it might not be able to run threads at the same time on various CPUs.

It sounds like it cant, so multi-threading would only help to keep threads from crashing = )

It cannot run more than one thread at once, full stop. Get that into your head ffs. And keeping threads from crashing is something everyone already does; if they don't, they notice quite quickly, and doing crazy ExecuteFunc abuse will never make it faster.

Originally Posted by Nestharus

I didn't say it helped with the trheading process, I just said hyper-threading makes it go faster : P and is included in most CPUs.


Also, generally when you have a program or w/e, if you let the OS handle the threads and so on (meaning it has parallel processing capabilities), it can account for any number of CPUs.

Wrong

1) you did say it helps with threading process (read my quote in last post)
2) hyperthreading does not make the multi-threading concept go faster
3) most modern CPU's in fact DO NOT have HTT.

Eh, this post doesn't need to be here and we already determined stuffs : P

Coke, HTT, as the name suggests, makes threads in general go faster (spiffy programming). Many CPUs do in fact come with it built in (a college professor said so, so it must be true) and (many college textbooks support this claim).
Why?
Because you can have multi-core CPUs with hyperthreading technology.... Please post some sources that say you can't. I'd love to read them.

I don't care what the name suggests. HTT doesn't make multithreading go faster and in fact all it does is force the OS to see the processor as 2. (Also known as "2 virtual processors, 1 physical")

I don't care what college professors or college text books tell you, especially if they're wrong.

Not only is HTT an intel-only technology (therefor most cpu's couldn't possibly have HTT)

And on top of that, the system hasn't been used in the common retail market for multi-core processors.

Proof of that is right here: The only processor for sale on newegg that still uses HTT is here and it is a socket 478, 89W single-core processor.

Thanks for playing,

Hm... Ok, I'll give you that one, but griffen still loses ;p

Nice one coke : D



+rep for winning btw : D

You know, it's at times like this that I think, yea, banning people for gross retardation is a good idea.

You're now claiming to have said first what I said in the 11th post in this thread, because you said it in the 34th? And also coming out with outrageous strawman arguments?

I'm not saying I said it first, I'm saying your last post was bad ^_^, that's all : D

I came to a conclusion and you said, ur wrong, and then you said the same thing I had just said like this

I say:
2 + 2 = 4

You say:
ur wrong, 2 + 2 = 4

I say:
wtf?

and way before this, you were talking about multi-processing and I was talking about multi-threading and sending that to various CPUs, you were saying you can't do that in wc3, I was saying well, you can multi-thread, then I did some research after you clarified and I said, it seems unlikely that it uses more than one CPU, in essence, I was agreeing with you in that one, and then you say something like the model above.

= ), I hope that clarifies things : D

So, here's the road map tho

1. I say multi-thread and running threads at same time
2. You say you can't multithread
3. I say you can
4. Eventually you say you can't do parallel processing
5. I do some research and go, you can't know unless you read the source, but it's highly probable that it doesn't do parallel processing
6. You say ur wrong, it doesn't do parallel processing
7. I say, that last post was pretty retarded

But atleast we're all on the same page now, so all is ok : D

Originally Posted by Nestharus

1. I say multi-thread and running threads at same time
2. You say you can't multithread
3. I say you can
4. Eventually you say you can't do parallel processing
5. I do some research and go, you can't know unless you read the source, but it's highly probable that it doesn't do parallel processing
6. You say ur wrong, it doesn't do parallel processing
7. I say, that last post was pretty retarded

Running threads at same time IS parallel processing - you alledged it (and it's also what multithreading means in common usage).

More like you say 2+2 = 5 to start with, since you EXPLICITLY said that it DOES execute multiple threads at once.

I said the model applies later on : P, I know I wrote that in my last post : D